Dewey Must Die!

[red_elk]

The Imperial one? It is not obsolete in the sense that it's still in use, but there is an international system used by vast majority countries in the world. And unlike things like language or calendar, measurement system doesn't carry much cultural value. Using different systems in different parts of the world creates confusion, especially in fields like aviation industry.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No I meant the Dewey system.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I have noticed the library has changed quite a bit from when I was a kid. Other than taking kids there to get kid's books (which is has always been the case), the majority of the rest of the patrons are using the free internet. Thank god there's a time limit on it, it's the same people on it every day.

 

[Silurian]

Shopping in person encompasses a variety of experiences depending upon the store and the products. We are talking about libraries not grocery stores. Like you I use the library. Finding the book you want is not anything like choosing apples or sliced turkey from bins or shelves. Don't pretend that they are. Library shelves are just a storage place where a book can sit untouched for years and prices and quality don't change.
.....

Choosing a book normally takes me longer than an apple.
If I am looking for a maths book I want one that matches my ability. I do not want Maths degree level as I only did maths too an engineering degree level so it would be beyond me and I do not want a book aimed at a 16 year old; its so much better to have them close together so I look at them and see if it covers the subject I want and is at a level I can understand.
I also don't want to carry a pile of books around the library whilst I decide which one I want.

Smart shelves, that record what books are on the shelf, could work but I may not put my pile of books back on the shelf if there is no space at the location where the book I choose is located. So you are still going to have "lost" books in the library.

I agree that walking is good, I am a member of a walking club, but I prefer to walk along the SWCP. As Valka pointed out may people are not able too walk far so would no longer be able to use the library.

Not everyone has a smart phone so the library would have to supply devices. I put my phone in the washing machine (rant), others can not afford one etc.

I was not aware of a shortage of numbers. The Dewey system has been updated regularly, I see no reason why it could not be extend to 1000 to 1900 and beyond to take former sub catogories that have ballooned.

Valka has a valid point about censorship. There is also self censorship. At the present there is no record of what books I take off the shelf and read for a few hours then put back. You would have to assume that your book choices could become public.


The capital and running costs of this system would be higher than present. But you could get rid of librarians and replace the with minimum wage shelf stackers but then there would be few people who actual knew anything about the books.

It would seem better to me to digitize all the books so that people could look at them on a computer in the library if they wished.

 

[red_elk]

No I meant the Dewey system.

If hobbsyoyo description is correct and maintaining the system takes a lot of effort in exchange for very little benefit, I'd qualify the system as obsolete.

 

[Evie]

Generally speaking, the people who go fetch your stuff in the "randomly sorted" backstore are paid to do so. It’s their job. They can do whatever is most convenient for the company as a whole (usually for what you describe, faster unpacking than having to meticulously sort through everything), even if its not convenient or convivial to them

Whereas in most libraries you’re paying (either via taxes, membership fees, university tuition or some combination thereof) for the privilege to consult these books. In turn, this means the experience should be focused on the visitor, not on whatever makes storing the books easier. In that light, making browsing (ssomething several patrons apparently prefer to do, judging by this thread -Valka, Silurian, me) for little actual benefit to the patrons (the best argument that’s been made is better catalogues, but as was admitted later, one could have the better catalogues without ditching the sorting system.

At this point, a lot of the remaining arguments for abolishing sorting boils do to "I don’t use it so nobody should need it". (The replacement of more qualified, higher paid workers with less qualified, minimum wages position is of little value, given the negative impact on the community and local economy)

 

[Silurian]

Taping a number onto the spine of a book does not take a lot of effort.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Really, there are a million ways to physical store books that are rational and easier for people to browse that aren't tied to Dewey. Secondhand bookstores I've been too almost always store them by subject and then alphabetize within the subjects either by author or book title (usually author).

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I thought that was essentially what Dewey did. Other than the initial step of having to look up the number for a particular subject.

 

[warpus]

Sounds to me, with my now limited knowledge and understanding of Dewey, that Dewey works best for book collections that contain a lot of non-fiction, usually academic in nature. For everything else it seems to make more sense to order by book type, author last name, first name, and title

 

[CKS]

There are signs all over that we're not supposed to reshelve books, but that's because most people don't actually care if they put it back in the right place. I put them back, though, since I do know how to do it correctly.

Many libraries track in-house use. If you reshelve the book correctly, your use of it does not get counted. Books that don't get used end up on the discard list. Books with in-house use are kept, even if no-one checks them out.

Sounds to me, with my now limited knowledge and understanding of Dewey, that Dewey works best for book collections that contain a lot of non-fiction, usually academic in nature. For everything else it seems to make more sense to order by book type, author last name, first name, and title

This is, in fact, how fiction is sorted in the Dewey Decimal system. The number of categories of fiction varies with library size.

 

[uppi]

Agreed, but the software is tied to the system and it's terrible. I guess my thought process is that if we could force the libraries to ditch dewey decimal, that would likely force them to ditch their very specialized software systems and adopt something better based on modern search programs.

I suspect they would just extend the existing software with a poorly designed mapping from the old system to the new system.

But you are correct, my hatred is directed at the software and not as much the system itself. Even still, what function does the system really serve anymore? As noted, many private libraries use their own systems. Just alphabetize the books (or categorize and alphabetize within the categories) and be done with it.

For a new library, sure. But for an existing library, I don't see enough benefits that would justify rearranging all the books.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Choosing a book normally takes me longer than an apple.
If I am looking for a maths book I want one that matches my ability. I do not want Maths degree level as I only did maths too an engineering degree level so it would be beyond me and I do not want a book aimed at a 16 year old; its so much better to have them close together so I look at them and see if it covers the subject I want and is at a level I can understand.
I also don't want to carry a pile of books around the library whilst I decide which one I want.

Exactly. Although I do carry a pile of books around (depending on how many I find), take them to a table, and see which ones would be useful. The non-useful ones get set aside, and if a librarian wanders by I can let her know they can be reshelved, and just use the others. The point is that I'm not carrying them very far; they've been taken from the same shelf or two, not one from the first floor, two more from the second floor, another from the fourth floor, and so on.

Smart shelves, that record what books are on the shelf, could work but I may not put my pile of books back on the shelf if there is no space at the location where the book I choose is located. So you are still going to have "lost" books in the library.

I think the idea Birdjaguar is pushing here is that it doesn't matter where you drop a book - each one has a GPS tracker that lets you home in on its signal so you can find it.

Would be very inconvenient if there's a book I wanted that happened to be located in the men's washroom at the time. Of course it would also be inconvenient since I don't actually own anything with GPS tracking capability.

I agree that walking is good, I am a member of a walking club, but I prefer to walk along the SWCP. As Valka pointed out may people are not able too walk far so would no longer be able to use the library.

One thing I've noticed since getting my own walker is when other people have one, too. I'm not the only library patron by far who is mobility challenged. I also see people in wheelchairs, and there was a lady on crutches there the last time I was.

Not everyone has a smart phone so the library would have to supply devices. I put my phone in the washing machine (rant), others can not afford one etc.

There is a portion of the fourth floor (non-fiction floor) where phones are not permitted. People go there to read and work on whatever research or writing projects they're doing, read a newspaper, participate in the adult coloring program, and now they've got a chess program as well (they supply the set, presumably). The idea is that the fourth floor is a quiet zone, and people are not supposed to be wandering around yakking on phones.

I have no idea if using GPS devices means the thing is going to be pinging or beeping or if they're silent, but if they make any noise, that would be really annoying to other library patrons.

And if the library supplied the devices, they'd either have to have a lot of them, or you'd get a backlog of people waiting to use them. In neither case is this a good thing, since having to buy a lot of them would eat up precious budget money that could instead be spent on books and literacy programs. Some libraries are free for borrowers, I'm told... that's not the case here. There's a fee to use the library if you want to borrow books or use the computers, and the library holds two book sales each year plus a year-round room where they sell donated books (that's how I've weeded out some of my own collection; of course I've also acquired more there).

I was not aware of a shortage of numbers. The Dewey system has been updated regularly, I see no reason why it could not be extend to 1000 to 1900 and beyond to take former sub catogories that have ballooned.

It's easy enough to change numbers in a database, but physically changing the numbers on the books would be a daunting undertaking. Of course you could just tape over the existing label, but in many cases that would mean removing the plastic book jacket to do it. Mucking around with book jackets is something I did during my time of working in a library, particularly when I was either repairing old books or processing new ones. It's a time-consuming activity that not all libraries would be willing (or have the staff) to do.

In theory, you're correct, though; we're not running out of numbers, since you can always add another category. The problem is in rearranging the others.

Valka has a valid point about censorship. There is also self censorship. At the present there is no record of what books I take off the shelf and read for a few hours then put back. You would have to assume that your book choices could become public.

I hadn't thought about the last point, but yeah... normally I'd say that my book choices should be between me and the library staff, not between me and anyone who could hack into the system.

The capital and running costs of this system would be higher than present. But you could get rid of librarians and replace the with minimum wage shelf stackers but then there would be few people who actual knew anything about the books.

Some libraries have already cut down on staff, and there are regions where libraries are actually closing because money is so tight. There was a situation awhile back in Newfoundland, where people of one community were livid that their library was closing, since the next one was 30 miles away. The government's attitude was "So just drive there." Shrug.

Of course that's not possible for everyone, and why should they have to? Libraries aren't just about books anymore.

It would seem better to me to digitize all the books so that people could look at them on a computer in the library if they wished.

That would leave the bottom-rung people, including the homeless, with no way to read anything. As mentioned, borrowing books and using the computers aren't free here.

There was a time a few years back when the library had a program in which they gave free library cards to people/families who couldn't afford them otherwise; one of these individuals who received one decided they didn't need it, so they put it up on Freecycle. Next thing I know, as one of the Freecycle staff, I'm getting an email from an irate librarian, livid that the card had been made available to "just anybody" and they'd been intended to be free.

I explained that Freecycle items are free, with no strings attached - no buying, selling, or trading allowed, and if we caught anyone doing that, they could be kicked out of the group. And while some Freecycle users could easily afford to pay for some of the stuff, most people using that service are using it because they can't afford new stuff. So while the card wasn't being used by the original recipient, at least they weren't trying to sell it and they hadn't thrown it away. It would be used by someone, very likely a mother with young kids and not a lot of budget for entertainment, so it would likely work out more or less as the library had intended.

Taping a number onto the spine of a book does not take a lot of effort.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to do it once. It takes a lot of time to do it with a whole section of books, if you're renumbering a lot of them. And since library books have certain security features, that would be problematic as well.

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I thought that was essentially what Dewey did. Other than the initial step of having to look up the number for a particular subject.

It is basically what Dewey does.

I could wish that one of the local second-hand bookstores would be more conscientious about sorting. They've got the mystery, western, SF/F, Canadiana, and classics sorted. But the rest is just thrown into "general fiction" - which makes it monumentally aggravating for me to find historical fiction. I told the owner I'd buy more books if she'd have a separate section for them, but she just shrugged and said they were already sorted by author.

My question of how was I supposed to know which authors to look for if I didn't already know that a particular author wrote historical fiction was met with another shrug.

Therefore, her loss is Amazon's gain.

Sounds to me, with my now limited knowledge and understanding of Dewey, that Dewey works best for book collections that contain a lot of non-fiction, usually academic in nature. For everything else it seems to make more sense to order by book type, author last name, first name, and title

If you have a lot of books, yes. My own personal library probably has more nonfiction books than most people's, but then I've got books going back as far as a few I saved from junior high. My most recent non-fiction acquisitions were a couple of books about researchers in the Antarctic; these were bought from the library.

But my nonfiction collection isn't big enough that I need to have them sorted according to Dewey.

Take a look at some of the options in your Library Thing account next time you log in. There are several different ways you can customize the way you organize your books. Since that site is used by everyone from people with a few dozen books to professionals and organizations, they've been adding more ways to organize stuff.

 

[Silurian]

I think the idea Birdjaguar is pushing here is that it doesn't matter where you drop a book - each one has a GPS tracker that lets you home in on its signal so you can find it.

There is a portion of the fourth floor (non-fiction floor) where phones are not permitted. People go there to read and work on whatever research or writing projects they're doing, read a newspaper, participate in the adult coloring program, and now they've got a chess program as well (they supply the set, presumably). The idea is that the fourth floor is a quiet zone, and people are not supposed to be wandering around yakking on phones.

I have no idea if using GPS devices means the thing is going to be pinging or beeping or if they're silent, but if they make any noise, that would be really annoying to other library patrons.

Yes the general books will end up anywhere So you could have a book on needle point next to one on string theory. Large books and I assume reference books would have there own section.
GPS would not be used under Birdjaguar's system but smart shelves. The books would have chips in them similar to those in contactless payment bankcards or buspasses. When the book gets put on the shelf, the shelf sends out a radio signal that powers the chip up enough for it to say what book it is; I think that is how the tech works.
I would assume that the app could be made so that it would only work if the phone was switched to silent.

It's easy enough to change numbers in a database, but physically changing the numbers on the books would be a daunting undertaking. Of course you could just tape over the existing label, but in many cases that would mean removing the plastic book jacket to do it. Mucking around with book jackets is something I did during my time of working in a library, particularly when I was either repairing old books or processing new ones. It's a time-consuming activity that not all libraries would be willing (or have the staff) to do.

In theory, you're correct, though; we're not running out of numbers, since you can always add another category. The problem is in rearranging the others.

I would assume that if the dewey system was expanded it would not be done in one go. Maybe over ten years a section at a time.

The cost of entering books into the smart shelf system and the dewey system would be simular.

That would leave the bottom-rung people, including the homeless, with no way to read anything. As mentioned, borrowing books and using the computers aren't free here.

Public libraries are free in the UK, but you have to pay to use the computers. A couple of weeks ago I was waiting for someone and went into the library and read the newspapers for an hour.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes the general books will end up anywhere So you could have a book on needle point next to one on string theory. Large books and I assume reference books would have there own section.
GPS would not be used under Birdjaguar's system but smart shelves. The books would have chips in them similar to those in contactless payment bankcards or buspasses. When the book gets put on the shelf, the shelf sends out a radio signal that powers the chip up enough for it to say what book it is; I think that is how the tech works.
I would assume that the app could be made so that it would only work if the phone was switched to silent.

Sounds like a nightmare.

It's aggravating at home here that I can't keep all my books on a particular subject together because some of them are so huge/heavy that there's only one shelf they'll fit on. So my Shakespeare books are not together. For that matter, even my Star Trek books aren't together since I've got some large ones that just won't fit into the normal shelves (most of my Star Trek books are normal paperback size). I do have large needlepoint books next to my astronomy books, because that's where they fit.

It's inconvenient enough here, in a single apartment. Having that in a large library would be chaos.

I would assume that if the dewey system was expanded it would not be done in one go. Maybe over ten years a section at a time.

Hopefully all the libraries would be able to keep up.

The cost of entering books into the smart shelf system and the dewey system would be simular.

The thing is, this "smart shelf system" would require people to have access to a gadget to read them. This may be too difficult for some people to wrap their minds around, but not everyone owns a smart phone, can afford to own a smart phone, or even wants to own a smart phone. And not all library systems are brimming with the funding to supply enough gadgets to people to avoid lineups. This is an excellent way to kill a library, since people will get so frustrated that they won't go back.

Public libraries are free in the UK, but you have to pay to use the computers. A couple of weeks ago I was waiting for someone and went into the library and read the newspapers for an hour.

Unfortunately, some communities don't value their libraries, or they figure things are so easy to buy online that they don't think about the people who either can't afford that, don't want that, or need books that aren't available online (believe it or not, not every book is digitized). And then there are places where the community values the library but the politicians don't. There have been some exasperating arguments here over funding for the library and the museum.

 

[Silurian]

The thing is, this "smart shelf system" would require people to have access to a gadget to read them. This may be too difficult for some people to wrap their minds around, but not everyone owns a smart phone, can afford to own a smart phone, or even wants to own a smart phone. And not all library systems are brimming with the funding to supply enough gadgets to people to avoid lineups. This is an excellent way to kill a library, since people will get so frustrated that they won't go back.

There would be a wireless system conecting the shelves too the library computer. People would be able to search the library computer from their phone or library supplied device. I would assume that you could get a paper print out as well if you could not use the tech.
I agree that it seems like a large cost to solve a small problem. And as I noted most of the books will be scanned soon anyway.
It seems to me it would be like setting up a system for steam powered cars when petrol and diesel are already around.

 

[Evie]

And it still make actual browsing impossible, relying instead on "Eh, whatever, you can just look up the database info on teh book, it's the same right?"

Which of course is ridiculous nonsense. The presentation, size and age of the book are much easier to judge in person rather than having to look through every freaking book's entry in the database (whatever kind of database it might be), or through abstract numbers. Likewise distinguishing between a a bad pop-sci take on a topic, a quality entry-level introduction to the same, and an in-depth scientific treatise on the topic from a database is something that's much more easily done looking at the books and shufflign through them than through an internet window.

This still seems like a great deal of being modern for the sake of being modern.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There would be a wireless system conecting the shelves too the library computer. People would be able to search the library computer from their phone or library supplied device. I would assume that you could get a paper print out as well if you could not use the tech.
I agree that it seems like a large cost to solve a small problem. And as I noted most of the books will be scanned soon anyway.
It seems to me it would be like setting up a system for steam powered cars when petrol and diesel are already around.

You know where this system would be handy, at least if the books were chipped (not the shelves)?

In my apartment. I'm forever misplacing books. That's the problem when you write fanfic as much as I do; I prefer to be as true to the source material as possible, so if I write Hulzein stories, I've got the novels out, taking notes about all kinds of stuff, and then they tend to migrate around in and out of my duffel bag if I take them to the library or have them by the computer, or if I'm reading them in bed... pretty soon I want a particular book and can't remember where I left it. Being able to track something down here would be really handy.

But libraries are supposed to be already organized, and they've got a slew of student employees whose job it is to shelve books and do shelf-reading to make sure everything is in the right place. Shelf-reading is a very tedious job, but absolutely necessary to do, and I know the argument will be that with "smart shelves" this would be unnecessary. But I repeat: that way lies chaos and increased laziness in people if they don't actually need to know anything about how books should be organized.

 

[Silurian]

You know where this system would be handy, at least if the books were chipped (not the shelves)?

The chips would be in the book just as they are in contactless bank cards and travel cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactless_smart_card

The readers would be on the shelves. The range of the readers is up to about 100mm and they power the chip in the book.
So the whole shelf would have to be one detectory or you would need rows of detectors to pick up books being pushed to back of the shelves or lifted over the front row of detectors. If you only had one row of sensors and a book was pushed to the back it may be difficult to detect if it was there or just put on the shelf and pulled out without letting go of it. There more I think about the more problems and cost I see.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The chips would be in the book just as they are in contactless bank cards and travel cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactless_smart_card

The readers would be on the shelves. The range of the readers is up to about 100mm and they power the chip in the book.
So the whole shelf would have to be one detectory or you would need rows of detectors to pick up books being pushed to back of the shelves or lifted over the front row of detectors. If you only had one row of sensors and a book was pushed to the back it may be difficult to detect if it was there or just put on the shelf and pulled out without letting go of it. There more I think about the more problems and cost I see.

Sounds a lot more trouble than it would be worth.

According to the Wikipedia article:

Multiple cards detection
When two or more contactless cards are in close proximity the system may have difficulty determining which card is intended to be used. The card-reader may charge the incorrect card or reject both.[10] This is generally only an issue where a service provider uses a payment card to facilitate access - eg a wallet containing a parking lot access card, an apartment building entry card and various contactless payment cards can usually be used on entry to a car park or whatever - the car park entry system can detect its own card in the wallet and open the barrier. In a retail shop, however, it is advisable to remove the individual contactless card from the wallet when making a payment. At the very least this gives the cardholder the opportunity to communicate which card s/he intends to be used to make payment. It is an issue of the card identifying a subscription -v- payment by transaction.

There are places where people pay to get into an apartment building???

I have an electronic keycard that grants access to this building and the fitness room inside. There's a separate code for the laundry rooms on each floor, and the machines require a different electronic pay card to work.

However, I can't imagine having to pay to get into the building. That's insane.

 

[Silurian]

There are places where people pay to get into an apartment building???

I have an electronic keycard that grants access to this building and the fitness room inside. There's a separate code for the laundry rooms on each floor, and the machines require a different electronic pay card to work.

However, I can't imagine having to pay to get into the building. That's insane.

They do not pay to get into the building, the card replaces keys.
So it would be good if people were moving in and out or someone lost their card, just cancel the card and issue a new one to one person.

The smart shelf would need to detect all the books as they were placed on the shelf so it would detect more than one book at a time. So the system would have to be able to read mutiple book chips at the same time (or in parts of a second in sequence).